Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question

Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by more_corn on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @04:32PM (#41438912)

I hear what you’re saying, but really, this is a stupid question and a waste of everyone’s time. Instead you could give a real big report that has insufficient information or that contains a red herring to an improper assumption. The interviewer could then measure if the candidate properly pushed back, exposed an improper assumption and asked relevant clarifying questions. Like one would do at the actual job exhibiting the characteristics the question purports to measure.

The car example is just stupid. Could you image how idiotic you’d sound beginning by asking is it a real car? You’re basically accusing your interlocutor of operating in bad faith (which they were).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by dllthomas on Tuesday September 03, 2024 @09:05PM (#41440881)

> really, this is a stupid question and a waste of everyone’s time

Yeah, I think I agree. I was just responding to (what I saw as) sentiment that it was entirely unrelated to performance, which seems to overstate the case.

> Could you image how idiotic you’d sound beginning by asking is it a real car?

Tbh, "willing to sound like an idiot to double check assumptions" is probably something worth selecting for! I don't think that saves this question, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Steve Ballmer's incorrect binary search interview question by autumnstwilight on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @01:57AM (#41442350)

Not just that, but the person said they did ask the interviewer what kind of car it was and what it was used for, at which point any reasonable person would explain it was a toy!

That interview question is basically, "We lied about an imaginary situation and were disappointed you failed to accuse us of lying mid-job interview."

[ Parent | on HN ]